Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Basic Instincts Were Sound (On Iraq WMD programs)
The Los Angeles Times ^ | February 1, 2004 | Gary Schmitt

Posted on 02/01/2004 4:41:10 AM PST by quidnunc

If David Kay is right about what his weapons inspection teams have found — or rather not found — in Iraq, it's clear the Bush administration was wrong about Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, says there are no large chemical and biological stockpiles likely to be found, and that Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program had been literally buried. While he also concluded that Iraq had been aggressively moving to develop longer-range ballistic missiles, had kept its biological-weapons research program alive and tried to restart its nuclear program in 2001, the overall picture is far from the robust set of WMD programs suggested by one senior administration official after another in the year leading up to the war.

Critics of the war and the administration have been quick to use Kay's statements as evidence that the White House jury-rigged intelligence estimates to support its policy of getting rid of Hussein, and hyped what intelligence there was on Iraq's programs. But the Bush administration relied on virtually the same intelligence estimates that the Clinton administration used during the U.N.-inspection crisis in late 1997. As far as hype goes, it would be hard for anyone to beat then-Defense Secretary William S. Cohen's appearance on national television, holding up a five-pound sack of sugar and announcing that a similar amount of Iraqi produced anthrax was enough to kill half the population of Washington.

So, who is at fault? Right now, it looks like U.S. intelligence simply didn't do its job. Not that the job was easy; Iraq was a virtual police state, and Hussein was adept at uncovering plots against him and hiding his own plans. Remember, after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, we were surprised to discover that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was just months from producing a bomb — not the five to 10 years that U.S. intelligence had thought. The reality is we had no high-level Iraqi spies who could tell us what was going on; moreover, Hussein appears to have been good at feeding false information through double agents and our high-tech collection systems. With no new information of note, it is no surprise that the analytic side of the intelligence community — a bureaucracy like any bureaucracy, with its own inertia — didn't change what it thought about these programs from what it had learned in the early 1990s.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: davidkay; garyschmitt; wmd

1 posted on 02/01/2004 4:41:11 AM PST by quidnunc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
LA Times? Wow! Kerry's face just got longer.
2 posted on 02/01/2004 4:45:51 AM PST by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc; All
I've got a question:
The most recent quote I have of President Bush saying, that WMDs are in Iraq is this:
"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." Dated May 29, 2003.

Are there any more recent quotes similar to this one out there?
3 posted on 02/01/2004 4:46:57 AM PST by RandallFlagg (<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">miserable failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
I am amazed ,too by the LA Times.The writer is formerly on Reagan's Advisory Board.It correctly reflects Kay's testimony and adds to the discussion of how hard it is to get information that is accurate and the dangers of proliferation.One thing I have said is that the big push was on to lift the sanctions...for the children.Saddam would have been back in business.
4 posted on 02/01/2004 4:52:04 AM PST by MEG33 (God bless our armed forces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
The presence or absence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq is beside the point. It is a propaganda ruse kept going by President Bush's opponents.
1. President Bush has succeeded in waging the War on Terror in the heart of the terrorists' home territory, rather than in the United States, where the terrorists had intended to wage it.

2. He has established a military presence in terrorist territory from which to combat them successfully.

3. He removed a government that served as a support center for the terrorists.

4. He has successfully responded to the terrorists' attack on the continental United States by taking offensive action, and he--so far--has prevented a second attack.

5. The doctrine that he proclaimed has already lead to the capitulation of Lybia and has other regimes that support these terrorists on the defensive.

Incidently, he removed a brutal dictatorship and liberated the Iraqi people, but that also was not the reason for the removal of the regime of Saddam Tikriti from power.

So far he has been gloriously victorious.

The carping about "weapons of mass destruction", the obviously false charges that "Bush lied", etc., et al., ad nauseum, and any other red herring they can think of, by Democrats and "Liberals" and their spokespersons in The Democrat Propaganda Machine (otherwise known as "The Mainstream Newsmedia") is nothing more than anti-Bush propaganda.

5 posted on 02/01/2004 5:19:29 AM PST by Savage Beast (Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quidnunc
"While he also concluded that Iraq had been aggressively moving to develop longer-range ballistic missiles, had kept its biological-weapons research program alive and tried to restart its nuclear program in 2001, the overall picture is far from the robust set of WMD programs suggested by one senior administration official after another in the year leading up to the war."

Well excuuuussseee me! Personally, I think the ongoing R&D program is MORE important than the presence of actual stockpiles, as it gives the proof that the INTENT of SoDamned Insane was to obtain and use WMD's.

6 posted on 02/01/2004 6:33:27 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
"3. He removed a government that served as a support center for the terrorists."

You missed the real one: "He removed a government that had an active procurement/R&D program to obtain WMD's, and which intended to use and/or distribute same in the future."

7 posted on 02/01/2004 6:39:31 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)


LOVE YOUR TAG LINE

SEMPER FI

POST YOUR TAG LINE EVERYWHERE

IT WILL GUARENTEE RE ELECTION

8 posted on 02/01/2004 8:14:47 AM PST by CHICAGOFARMER (Citizen Carry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
Don't forget the obvious, Iraq and Afganastan are crawling with CIA, military intel, British and Israeli intell.

This gives them ENORMOUS recruitment possibilities, for decades into the future.

Which was our main problem before 9/11, no human intell.

9 posted on 02/01/2004 8:33:42 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
IT WILL GUARENTEE RE ELECTION

The current seven Dem candidates will help to guarantee Bush's election.

;-)

10 posted on 02/01/2004 8:39:10 AM PST by Allegra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Well excuuuussseee me! Personally, I think the ongoing R&D program is MORE important than the presence of actual stockpiles, as it gives the proof that the INTENT of SoDamned Insane was to obtain and use WMD's.

Agree 100%. I mean, it might make the difference of whether WMD would be used against us in one year or five years. Why is one more acceptable than another.

11 posted on 02/01/2004 9:44:02 AM PST by alnick (A vote for anyone but George W. Bush for president in 2004 is a vote to strengthen Al Qaeda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"He removed a government that had an active procurement/R&D program to obtain WMD's, and which intended to use and/or distribute same in the future."

Saddam made explicit threats to the US before the invasion of Kuwait in Aug '90. During the (in)famous April Glaspie meeting (in I believe, July of '90) Saddam is recorded as saying:

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you. [My italics]
It's clear that Saddam is refering to his conventional forces when he speaks of "not threating" us, not coming all the way to the US. The transcript can be read at this link. The quote is about a third of the way through the transcript, under the heading, Protecting the Oil Flow

"Individual Arabs may reach you". Pretty chilling when you remember how "individual Arabs" reached us on 9/11.

12 posted on 02/01/2004 9:52:35 AM PST by ishmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ishmac
Great point. I wonder if anyone else has found this.
13 posted on 02/01/2004 11:31:37 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Okay. You're right, WW. He certainly did.
14 posted on 02/01/2004 2:49:12 PM PST by Savage Beast (Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER; Happy2BMe
Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)

"LOVE YOUR TAG LINE

SEMPER FI

POST YOUR TAG LINE EVERYWHERE

IT WILL GUARENTEE RE ELECTION"

I like it too. I wish I could take the credit, but it all belongs to Happy2BMe, who gave me permission to use it as a tagline.

By the way, does anyone know how to make bumperstickers or have them made? Some of these taglines would make good bumperstickers.

15 posted on 02/01/2004 2:58:49 PM PST by Savage Beast (Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Excellent point! I should have thought of that one. I'm glad you and W did.
16 posted on 02/01/2004 3:00:28 PM PST by Savage Beast (Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast
From an earlier and less turbulent time . .

W

Do I hear a second on "W"

The "Anti - - Anti-war" Wave. What Should It Be? What Should It Look Like?

17 posted on 02/01/2004 3:31:37 PM PST by Happy2BMe (U.S. borders - Controlled by CORRUPT Politicians and Slave-Labor Employers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe
I second it:

W
in '04!

18 posted on 02/01/2004 9:02:10 PM PST by Savage Beast (Whom will the terrorists vote for? Not George W. Bush--that's for sure! ~Happy2BMe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson